And your arguments are wrong. Studies have shown that decriminalization does not lead to an increase in drug abuse. You can keep harping on that same point all you want. The data does not support your position.

Read this again. What we are discussing here is a complete decriminalization - including growth and distribution - not just decriminalizing the use of drugs. The latter is what has happened in Portugal, and even then it is still considered an administrative offense.

Read this again. What we are discussing here is a complete decriminalization - including distribution - not just decriminalizing the use of drugs. The latter is what has happened in Portugal, and even then it is still considered an administrative offense.

The question I would ask you is, what happened after the Prohibition amendment was repealed in regards to alcohol use and violence? Did the US become a nation of drunks (as some people in the temperance movement predicted)? Did the bootleggers become even more powerful?

The evidence is pretty clear to me. The government should not prohibit vices. Regulate? Sure. But prohibition creates many more problems than it solves.

"We grow up thinking that﻿ beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are﻿ easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of﻿ a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

You cannot draw a parallel between what happened when the Prohibition ended and what can happen if heroin manufacturing, distribution and use is legalized, because they are two vastly different substances, both culturally and function-wise. I agree with you that prohibition is worthless and even counter-productive when it comes to relatively harmless substances such as alcohol and marijuana. A person can be a productive and healthy citizen if he gets drunk twice a week or smokes a joint every 2nd day. But this is not the case with heroin: There's only heroin abuse, not heroin use. In many cases all it takes is one hit and you're hooked. The benefits of legalizing heroin - I can hardly think of any, because the money that cartels make on it is probably pennies compared to what they make on marijuana (61% of the income of Mexican cartels) - do not outweigh the costs. The costs will range from more teenage deaths due to substance abuse, a decrease in the general happiness of the population, to an increase in the amount of people who become money-holes for society because they are so addicted that they turn to crime in order to fund their addiction, or because they need constant care.
Basically, once heroin hits the stores, more people are likely to experiment with it or say "Fuck it, just today" because they've had a bad day, just like people do with alcohol, and since it only takes one time to screw you up, this is not desirable. This isn't even considering the cultural consequences of making heroin abuse seem alright by making it available to every fool walking in from the street, thus decreasing the perceived danger of the drug in the eyes of the common person. Conclusion: Decriminalization of heroin abuse and treatment of the aforementioned with carefully prescribed government licensed heroin is the way to go, but no more than that.

The evidence on alcohol consumption during Prohibition is incomplete, since standard data sources are not available for the Prohibition period. Thus, most analyses of Prohibition's effect use the cirrhosis death rate as a proxy. Figures 1 and 2 present data on alcohol consumption and cirrhosis, respectively.9 The figures suggests a strong correlation between alcohol consumption and cirrhosis. Both series decline noticeably just before the onset of Prohibition and increase gradually for the first three decades after repeal of Prohibition. Both series then increase more rapidly from the mid-1960's to the mid-1970's and decline from 1980 to the present. The correlation is not perfect; alcohol consumption exhibits a noticeable spike relative to cirrhosis in the 1940's, and cirrhosis starts declining several years earlier than alcohol consumption during the 1970's. But the figure suggests that cirrhosis is a reasonable proxy for alcohol consumption, and the evidence summarized in Dills and Miron (2001) confirms this impression.

You cannot draw a parallel between what happened when the Prohibition ended and what can happen if heroin manufacturing, distribution and use is legalized, because they are two vastly different substances, both culturally and function-wise. I agree with you that prohibition is worthless and even counter-productive when it comes to relatively harmless substances such as alcohol and marijuana. A person can be a productive and healthy citizen if he gets drunk twice a week or smokes a joint every 2nd day. But this is not the case with heroin. In many cases all it takes is one hit and you're hooked. The benefits of legalizing heroin - I can hardly think of any, because the money that cartels make on it is probably pennies compared to what they make on marijuana (61% of the income of Mexican cartels) - do not outweigh the costs. The costs will range from more teenage deaths due to substance abuse, a decrease in the general happiness of the population, to an increase in the amount of people who become money-holes for society because they are so addicted that they need to be constantly watched or because their abuse has left them in a near-vegetative state.

I doubt you're drug free, unless you don't drink alcohol, take Tylenol or ibuprofen when you have a headache, use Neosporin when you have a cut, or drink anything with caffeine in it. And you're certainly not original. Pretty much every prohibition supporter accuses the opposition of being an addict. It's the only argument you have because all of the data is against you.

You cannot draw a parallel between what happened when the Prohibition ended and what can happen if heroin manufacturing, distribution and use is legalized, because they are two vastly different substances, both culturally and function-wise. I agree with you that prohibition is worthless and even counter-productive when it comes to relatively harmless substances such as alcohol and marijuana. A person can be a productive and healthy citizen if he gets drunk twice a week or smokes a joint every 2nd day. But this is not the case with heroin: There's only heroin abuse, not heroin use. In many cases all it takes is one hit and you're hooked. The benefits of legalizing heroin - I can hardly think of any, because the money that cartels make on it is probably pennies compared to what they make on marijuana (61% of the income of Mexican cartels) - do not outweigh the costs. The costs will range from more teenage deaths due to substance abuse, a decrease in the general happiness of the population, to an increase in the amount of people who become money-holes for society because they are so addicted that they turn to crime in order to fund their addiction, or because they need constant care.
Basically, once heroin hits the stores, more people are likely to experiment with it or say "Fuck it, just today" because they've had a bad day, just like people do with alcohol, and since it only takes one time to screw you up, this is not desirable. This isn't even considering the cultural consequences of making heroin abuse seem alright by making it available to every fool walking in from the street, thus decreasing the perceived danger of the drug in the eyes of the common person. Conclusion: Decriminalization of heroin abuse and treatment of the aforementioned with carefully prescribed government licensed heroin is the way to go, but no more than that.

1. I don't understand why you linked that source. It has nothing to do with heroin.

2. Why are you so focused on heroin? This thread is about ecstacy. I know it has diverged some, but you're totally focused on a tangent.

3. I agree that heroin is more addictive than other drugs and should, therefore, be treated differently. But I still do not agree that prohibition is the way to go. We need to control the manufacture and distribution in some way. Prohibition prevents us from doing that. If we can control the quality of the drug and track who is using, many lives can be saved.

4. People seem to think that legalization = billboards advertising drugs or something to that effect. It doesn't. It just allows us to control how, when, and where a drug is sold.

"We grow up thinking that﻿ beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are﻿ easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of﻿ a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

You said you were "drug-free", not "illegal drug-free". If you use any of the substances I listed, you are not drug-free. Period.

As for the rest of your posts, they're nothing but condescending bullshit, typical of a holier-than-thou Christian who believes she has knowledge that she does not have. I don't know if you are a Christian, but you sure sound like one.

"We grow up thinking that﻿ beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are﻿ easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of﻿ a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

[Note: I specifically stated 'illegal' drugs in my post. I was not talking about legal drugs. I'm sure you understand context though I'm happy to play games if you wish.]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

You said you were "drug-free", not "illegal drug-free". If you use any of the substances I listed, you are not drug-free. Period.

As for the rest of your posts, they're nothing but condescending bullshit, typical of a holier-than-thou Christian who believes she has knowledge that she does not have. I don't know if you are a Christian, but you sure sound like one.

You cannot draw a parallel between what happened when the Prohibition ended and what can happen if heroin manufacturing, distribution and use is legalized, because they are two vastly different substances, both culturally and function-wise. I agree with you that prohibition is worthless and even counter-productive when it comes to relatively harmless substances such as alcohol and marijuana. A person can be a productive and healthy citizen if he gets drunk twice a week or smokes a joint every 2nd day. But this is not the case with heroin: There's only heroin abuse, not heroin use. In many cases all it takes is one hit and you're hooked. The benefits of legalizing heroin - I can hardly think of any, because the money that cartels make on it is probably pennies compared to what they make on marijuana (61% of the income of Mexican cartels) - do not outweigh the costs. The costs will range from more teenage deaths due to substance abuse, a decrease in the general happiness of the population, to an increase in the amount of people who become money-holes for society because they are so addicted that they turn to crime in order to fund their addiction, or because they need constant care.
Basically, once heroin hits the stores, more people are likely to experiment with it or say "Fuck it, just today" because they've had a bad day, just like people do with alcohol, and since it only takes one time to screw you up, this is not desirable. This isn't even considering the cultural consequences of making heroin abuse seem alright by making it available to every fool walking in from the street, thus decreasing the perceived danger of the drug in the eyes of the common person. Conclusion: Decriminalization of heroin abuse and treatment of the aforementioned with carefully prescribed government licensed heroin is the way to go, but no more than that.

we don't need any more super addictive substances being legalized. we do need more treatment options for those who are already addicted.
this topic scares me...i worry so much that my kids will be tempted and struggle...and it breaks my heart. i want more people to get the kind of help they need. i want something to work...why can't peeps understand that there's no "fun" in being addicted to something...you just don't mess with the addictive stuff.

There can’t be any large-scale revolution until there’s a personal revolution, on an individual level. It’s got to happen inside first.

[Note: I specifically stated 'illegal' drugs in my post. I was not talking about legal drugs. I'm sure you understand context though I'm happy to play games if you wish.]

No, you didn't.

"We grow up thinking that﻿ beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are﻿ easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of﻿ a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."